Nelson Mandela, 87 last week, was he a Terrorist

[righthand]

Was NELSON MANDELA a Terrorist?

One man's terrorist is another man's FREEDOM FIGHTER. Nelson Mandela is no more or less a terrorist that most of the African leaders or other leaders of former colonies of former empires.

He didn't oppose the inclusion of his advocacy of his terrorist past in his biography because it was true and above all he's an honest man. He's head and shoulders above any person in 50 years. To be a leader before or after power, you need to have a large foot inside the military wing while leading the political wing, or else you have splits. Never forgetting his advocacy of terrorism, ensured he carried both wings. To be isolated in prison and carry this off, was an extraordinary feat and the key to the smooth transmission to rainbow power.

For governments there are no freedom fighters today. They are all terrorists. In the past they could be freedom fighters when they were supporting the overthrowing of a government you are against, like with the CONTRAS in Nicaragua or the US funded mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan. Now Putin and Bush are joined against 'terrorists'. Putin gains for now as Russian loses are down by one third in Chechnya with Iraq now the centre for 'terrorists'.

Military Death Figures Lower The Associated Press. Deaths of Russian servicemen in Chechnya dropped by nearly one-third in 2005 compared with the same period last year, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Thursday of last week. .com/stories/2005/07/08/018.html" target="_blank">http://www.themoscowtimes .com/stories/2005/07/08/018.html

NO, attacking only government targets that are likely well guarded, strikes me as akin to a suicide bomber with no really expectation of government change. Some element of distinction between the terrorist and the freedom fighter is the intent and result of their action. The guy in Oklahoma City was a terrorist. If he blew up the federal building at night when he might expect there would be no casualties, then he's some form of freedom fighter.

The most spectacular and that's what they were called by the IRA, non-terrorist event ever was the last IRA attack on London at Canary Wharf. Except for one poor man who refused to move, there were no casualties. But the building damage was extraordinary. All those panes of glass tumbled down in all directions. The insurance companies could pay the hugh cost, sure. However a much much bigger cost was the loss of confidence in London as a world financial centre. London' position as a world financial centre stood in ruin. That cost to the the UK economy into the future could not survive a continuous threat.

The tube/bus bombing in London was terrorist. Except for some vague hope of pushing the UK to remove it's troops from Iraq, there was no other intent but to terrorise ordinary decent London citizens.

When governments kill innocent civilians, the victims are not called terrorist victims. They are called collateral damage. Why? When you're dead from a bomb from the sky as against a strap-on bomb, are you any less dead, or any less terrorised for those that survive. I'm waiting for the day when all Iraqi casualties will be called 'collateral' and cease to be Iraqi or human just collaterals. Maybe they are already, in the minds of the US military . I'm sure like the 'gooks' in Vietnam, we're there already. http://www.iwchildren.org/veterans/goodeadindian.htm

Now the big questions. Name those countries that the UK left without being 'encouraged to leave' by force. List those countries where there was not a civil war subsequently. I only know of one on the second list, Zimbabwe. (Although it's decades later, it may still be getting it's civil war eventually to remove Mugabe.)

Why all these civil wars. Simple, in every case the departing power left a stooge native government that eventually had to go. The Foreign Office could wring its hands and bemoan the fact that the natives were incapable of self rule while continuing to exploit any resources of the country. Nowadays the imperial power has the World Bank and the IMF to do it's dirty work.

Interesting is the bits of countries that the UK has not yet not left. In the case of the large base it retains in CYPRUS, it was a UK justification for the Iraq war that is now conveniently forgotten. Saddam was supposed to have missiles capable of hitting British servicemen on the Cyprus bases. Totally erogenous but convenient at the time. The prime reason the UK maintains a base in Cyprus is as a listening post into the Middle East. If the Turks had not invaded the north of Cyprus, I'm sure by now that pressure would have removed this base.

There is no justification for the UK retaining Gibraltar, clearly part of Spain. As for the Malvinas (Falklands), it is in the expectation of future mineral wealth both on the islands and in the sea, that it's holding possession. It cannot be for the sheep population or the few sheep shaggers.

The Chinese people have being extraordinarily patient about Taiwan. Will that last with all the taunting they are getting from the US lately regarding buying US companies and so on. Who's interest is it that these situations exist preventing proper harmony and peace between nations.

"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions" by John Perkins , who describes himself as a former economic hit man - a highly paid professional who cheated countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. http://www.democracynow.org/article..../11/09/1526251

Also remember the American War of Independence. Were they freedom fighters or terrorists. Rebellion was treason. Hanging was government issue for traitors. Remember your brother against brother stories. Which was loyal? So we have good and bad insurgents. Depends who wins.

Of course I could remind you that the real reason for the revolution was jealousy at not been able to have titles in the colonies like in England. Yes property and wealth were the real corner stones of the Republic. The working man would be no worse serving a Queen. Certainly your aping and love for the monarchy indicates you are reluctant republicans. Your presidential style rule is very close to monarchy.

Now Nelson Mandela is about the only man who could have taken SA from white sectarian rule to rainbow/black rule. It has a highly emotional day for me when he was inaugurated. Whatever gods there are above were smiling that day. As an Irishman, it was marvelous to see injustice overcome.